Tomorrow

[andrewk]

Our wishes mean the wishes of the majority of the population who amongst other things demonstrated very clearly that Labour are no longer the choice of the people

Neither of the other two parties has a majority of the seats in the house, so the same could equally be said of them.

It feels odd that the two parties trying to negotiate are the ones that, in policy terms are furthest apart. Both Labour and the Conservatives are hell bent on replacing Trident (FWIW, I'd scrap it). They are both also (at best) luke warm on electoral reform. The LIb Dems have strongly opposing views on both.

I have heard it said that we find ourselves in an economic position so serious and of such common concern that maybe we should have a "Government of National Unity" of the kind that existed in the war years. If the election result can be said to express the wishes of the people, it seems reasonable to conclude that such a government is what the people actually want. Maybe if the Lib Dems and Conservatives cannot find sufficient common ground that both their leaders and rank & file will accept as the basis for an agreement, other than having another immediate election, it might be the only way forward.

Andrew

 

[mikep]

Surely that arrangement would mean we still have Brown as the "squatting Prime Minister" ? Without a majority party or combination thereof to displace the incumbents Brown will just stay where he is taking the country further down the road to ruin.

 

[andrewk]

I have no real idea what it would mean. We haven't had one of those in my lifetime. I doubt that a government of national unity would elect Gordon Brown as its leader.

Andrew

 

[mikep]

The old saying .cometh the hour come the man, should hold true,but I think that any move to a unity government would still need a silver bullet and stake in the heart to rid ourselves of the sitting P.M.-Personally the silver bullet is too good for him,given that had we had more helicopters in the Iraq/Afghan operations less men would have been exposed to the I.E.D.'s And remain in no doubt it was that ba-----d who deprived the military of the budget to buy them. You have probably gathered that I do not think much of the current P.M.
Mike.

 

[andrewk]

The old saying .cometh the hour come the man, should hold true,but I think that any move to a unity government would still need a silver bullet and stake in the heart to rid ourselves of the sitting P.M

He is now just a caretaker until a new PM replaces him. That will happen just as soon as there is an agreement between the parties that will create an alliance having a majority of MPs. This seems to explain the situation: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8667820.stm


Andrew

 

[andrewk]

You have probably gathered that I do not think much of the current P.M.

I can absolutely guarantee that you will come to hate the next PM, no matter who he is.

You might like this link:

Bank governor warns of economic nightmare that will keep party that wins election out of power for a generation

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1269787/Mervyn-King-said-public-anger-austerity-cuts-affect-British-politics-generation.html

Andrew

 

[briggie]

I can absolutely guarantee that you will come to hate the next PM, no matter who he is.

You might like this link:

Bank governor warns of economic nightmare that will keep party that wins election out of power for a generation

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1269787/Mervyn-King-said-public-anger-austerity-cuts-affect-British-politics-generation.html

Andrew

"A real leader faces the music, even when he doesn't like the tune." - Anon

 

[Deleted account DD]

I have no real idea what it would mean. We haven't had one of those in my lifetime. I doubt that a government of national unity would elect Gordon Brown as its leader.

Andrew

The closest was Major. He became unelected PM but went to the polls very quickly. He indicated at the time that if any other party gained more seats than him , and thats the key, he would immediately step aside.Say what you want about him and the egg woman, he had higher standards than the current incumbent.

 

[Deleted account DD]

"A real leader faces the music, even when he doesn't like the tune." - Anon

Absolutely correct, though some seem to have selective deafness. Funnily enough too, I think its fair to say that we have a good old cross section of folk on this forum. This poll was only a small one but the results (bearing in mind it closed before the election) reflected the general populations aparent views with regard to who came out on top.

Seems a pretty consistent tune throughout the country to me.

Neither of the other two parties has a majority of the seats in the house, so the same could equally be said of them.

Without getting into the realms of simple and absolute majorities the Tories are ahead on number of seats as an insular group and theres nothing at all to stop Brown going now. As I said in a much earlier post thats in assoc with HM plc. Unfortunately that BBC article explaining that leans very much on ye olde Britain and ignores 2 important points.

1/The Queen in this day and age is what is virtually what is known as a titular (that used to get a snigger at college) head of state and as expressed in the article is reluctant to dabble directly. Therefore she is highly unlikely to intervene in any way other than her seniors having a few quiet chats in dusty corridors, that of course harping back more on a de facto basis to checks and balances on Parliamentary sovereignty rather than a practical intervention :thumb2

2/It takes no account of the perenial debate that the country is effectively run in any case by senior civil servants so it doesnt actually matter that much who sits on the throne at Downing street:augie

One interesting subtlety is where it say the "Queen is obliged" then concedes "by long established convention" in other words its not statutory or even mandatory, its potentially wide open to interpretation in its application. So where's our "constitution" now

Surely that arrangement would mean we still have Brown as the "squatting Prime Minister" ? Without a majority party or combination thereof to displace the incumbents Brown will just stay where he is taking the country further down the road to ruin.

Correct, unfortunately, he can hang on in there as long as he wants if he interprets our "constitution" to his advantage.

His attitude was summed up by a comment on have I got news for you which said (words to the effect of) "Odd how Brown never showed any interest in proportional representation ............ until Friday" :lol:lol:lol:lol


Funny and sadly accurate, a true reflection of their morals.

 

[Deleted account DD]

I can absolutely guarantee that you will come to hate the next PM, no matter who he is.

Depends on how aware you are of the background and what a poisoned chalice this election has been I suppose

ps why "he"

You might like this link:

Bank governor warns of economic nightmare that will keep party that wins election out of power for a generation

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ele...-cuts-affect-British-politics-generation.html

LMAO............creates a bit of a conundrum doesnt it,

option 1 leave Brown in clinging on and allow him to be booted out "for a generation" even though we will Greece number 2 (metaphorically) by then

option 2 let someone who isnt as financially illiterate have a pop, hopefully clean things up a little but get booted out by those unaware of why things were so tough.

:doh:doh

 

[Deleted account DD]

I have heard it said that we find ourselves in an economic position so serious and of such common concern that maybe we should have a "Government of National Unity" of the kind that existed in the war years. If the election result can be said to express the wishes of the people, it seems reasonable to conclude that such a government is what the people actually want. Maybe if the Lib Dems and Conservatives cannot find sufficient common ground that both their leaders and rank & file will accept as the basis for an agreement, other than having another immediate election, it might be the only way forward.

Andrew

Are you advocating abandoning the first past the post on the basis of a result

I would say if they did it goes against all principles of democracy and sends out a very clear signal that if you dont like the result you can change it. It would be a move without lawful underpinning and without precedent other than in a Classic Dictatorship. Are we taking a lead from Mugabe here

If they want PR or similar they should initiate the system before the election. I for one included considerations of who I DIDNT want in office when I cast my vote.

In a couple of articles I have read, the "Government of National Unity" is described as "Utopian ideal" and "wish list material"

There is one forum where its described as "head up" somewhere, didnt bother reading that one :augie

 

[andrewk]

I would say if they did it goes against all principles of democracy and sends out a very clear signal that if you dont like the result you can change it.

The majority of people voted in the election for parties that are left of centre. It would seem that Nick Clegg prefers a right of centre government, is seeking that and is trying to take his party with him. I can only guess at his real motivation, but strongly suspect that it has more to do with having his bum on a minister's chair than it has to do with principle.

At the next election, if the majority of people wish to vote for a left of centre government, there will only be one place on the ballot paper for them to put their cross.


Andrew

 

[Deleted account DD]

If the election result can be said to express the wishes of the people, it seems reasonable to conclude that such a government is what the people actually want
.

Got me on a roll now

Didnt realise the figures ie the wishes of the franchised people, were actually so clear. The shift from Labour is infinitely clear looking a the swing:

Tories +3.8% (gained 97 seats) , Libs +1 (lost 5) , Lab -6.2 (lost 91)

and of the votes cast:

Tories 36%, Libs 23%, Lab 29%.


Now I'm no mathematician but the first set of figures show the publics view very clearly. If you want to talk prop rep the second set are even clearer :naughty

Browns position is untenable in a democracy. Not just my opinion, its fact !

 

[Deleted account DD]

The majority of people voted in the election for parties that are left of centre. It would seem that Nick Clegg prefers a right of centre government, is seeking that and is trying to take his party with him. I can only guess at his real motivation, but strongly suspect that it has more to do with having his bum on a minister's chair than it has to do with principle.

I actually agree with you on that one.

As my politics are basically centre to right I personally would be most happy with that result :thumbs:thumbs

 

[briggie]

I actually agree with you on that one.

As my politics are basically centre to right I personally would be most happy with that result :thumbs:thumbs

monster raving loony party made sense for once :augie

 

[andrewk]

"A real leader faces the music, even when he doesn't like the tune." - Anon

As multi-millionaires, I don't suppose either David Cameron or Nick Clegg will worry that much they their current careers might be over after the next election.


Andrew

 

[andrewk]

ps why "he"

Do you really think that any woman would be daft enough to want to be the next PM? I think not - it takes arrogance in spades to want that - and the two with those qualities are huddled in negotiation now.

Andrew

 

[andrewk]

Are you advocating abandoning the first past the post on the basis of a result

On the contrary, proportional representation would result in outcomes that give minor parties an inappropriate (excessive) amount of power. The present result could well become typical if the first past the post system was abandoned.

If you read my post again, you'll see that it begins "I have heard it said". IIRC, it was Michael Portillo who was saying it (but not advocating it).

Andrew

 

[andrewk]

Tories 36%, Libs 23%, Lab 29%.

The Lib Dems are a left of centre party. Most political commentators seem to regard them as being to the left of the Labour Party.

When I was at school, 23% + 29% was greater than 36%.

Andrew

 

[andrewk]

As my politics are basically centre to right I personally would be most happy with that result :thumbs:thumbs

So would I, as I think that Mervyn King may well be right.

Andrew